In fact, I've look further into your equivocations dmwessel, and this is a warning! In this thread alone you have pursued this tactic twice! And, even after attempts to show your mistakes (and folly) you continued.

If you continue to do such, you will receive no more warnings.

The Bible uses a method of confirming to establish (set in stone) doctrine, not Hebrew or Greek meanings:

"But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnessesevery word may be established." (Matt. 18:6)

"This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established." (2 Cor. 13:1)

You can find more variations of 'two or three witnesses' in the N.T. and the O.T. also.

The witnesses (I'm not Jehovah's Witness by the way) however, can only be 'God's words' because only they are infallible.

Therefore, in order to establish a Biblical truth you need to confirm it with Biblical witnesses (two or three).

"Cursed be he that confirms not all the words of this law to do them. And all the people shall say, Amen. (Deut. 27:26)

We must not go anywhere else but 'to the scriptures' and the scriptures themselves will explain the meanings for us. To do anything else is called the 'commandments of men' and will cause confusion.

Hi Bruce, My favorite line of Walter Martin's was when Jehovah Witnesses came to his door. Boy did they pick the wrong house to go to. He said "I knew you were coming". They asked "How did you know, did your neighbors call and let you know?" He replied, "No. I knew because the Bible says that false prophets will come calling!"

Ok, back to the topic at hand. For starters, the overwhelmingly vast majority of Hebrew language experts disagrees with Deem and Ross. So in order to believe that day is not literal, you have to trust untrained, non-Hebrew experts who clearly are trying to mend scripture to match their extra-Biblical view of the world. No one else in the world believes Genesis days are long eras of time except Old Earth Christians. Doesn't it bother you at least some, that Genesis 1 is the only place in the Bible where Old Earthers such as Deem and Hugh Ross question the meaning of day when used with an ordinal, or evening and morning, day and night? Everywhere else in scripture day is used like this they readily agree it means a literal day. God could not have possibly been any more clear that it was a literal day. God even reminds the reader of this in Exodus 20:11, where God tells us it established the pattern for our work week.Would you admit that if you totally ignored all outside influence, and only used the Bible as a source, that OEC would not even come into play? Regarding the fossil record, it sounds like by your statement that you think it supports an OEC viewpoint. Yet time and time again we find fossils of extant organisms showing they haven't changed even in the slightest amount. The most recent was a few months ago reported in PhysOrg of a shrimp supposedly 360 million years old that was identical to a modern shrimp. The fossil record is actually powerful evidence for a global flood, another fact of Biblical history Deem and Ross deny because it would have ripped up the geologic column they have put their faith in. The fossil record also supports a recent earth. For example, why is it that many fossils, especially those that still have soft tissue such as T-rex dinosaur bones, ALWAYS have C-14 in them? C-14 decays into Nitrogen, and after 50,000 years there should be no detectable C-14. Yet we find it all the time, in oil, gas, coal, diamonds, fossils, etc. That's why Deem and Ross try to convince their followers that God created the earth/moon/stars on day one instead of day 4! Doesn't this require much more calisthenics of the mind? It certainly requires a very radical interpretation of Genesis 1 that is contrary to the plainly written text (see Proverbs 8:9). Since God is light, couldn't his light have been the source of day vs night in the first 3 days of Creation?Well, I wish I knew the magic sauce that would bring you to the YEC camp. I was OEC until age 30, and probably the verses that stirred me the most were Psalms 118:8 and 1 Cor 1:20. But it was also all the evidence I learned about, that I was never taught in school, that contradicted an Old Earth. Many Christians I have talked to said that ultimately it was the death before sin problem that convinced them. I would also point out that Jesus refers to the first chapters of Genesis more than any other book of the OT, and he treats it as real history, such as when He said in Mark 10:6 "But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female ." Yet another verse Ross and Deem have to mark out of their Bible.

Fred

Hi Fred,

Thank you so much for that post. It was very persuasive, especially the verse were Jesus quoted Genesis 1. There is no greater authority on Scripture than Jesus.

I will spend time in scripture praying and reading Scripture about the subject. (Acts 17:11). I will also spend more time studying about the fossil record.

The Bible uses a method of confirming to establish (set in stone) doctrine, not Hebrew or Greek meanings:

"But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnessesevery word may be established." (Matt. 18:6)

"This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established." (2 Cor. 13:1)

You can find more variations of 'two or three witnesses' in the N.T. and the O.T. also.

The witnesses (I'm not Jehovah's Witness by the way) however, can only be 'God's words' because only they are infallible.

Therefore, in order to establish a Biblical truth you need to confirmÃ‚Â it with Biblical witnesses (two or three).

"Cursed be he that confirms not all the words of this law to do them. And all the people shall say, Amen. (Deut. 27:26)

We must not go anywhere else but 'to the scriptures' and the scriptures themselves will explain the meanings for us. To do anything else is called the 'commandments of men' and will cause confusion.Ã‚Â

I was following the Biblical method for interpreting, you were not!

I may not agree with other things you say (I am not a theistic evolutionist) but I agree with this.

We must not go anywhere else but 'to the scriptures' and the scriptures themselves will explain the meanings for us. To do anything else is called the 'commandments of men' and will cause confusion.

The Bible uses a method of confirming to establish (set in stone) doctrine, not Hebrew or Greek meanings:

"But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnessesevery word may be established." (Matt. 18:6)

"This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established." (2 Cor. 13:1)

You can find more variations of 'two or three witnesses' in the N.T. and the O.T. also.

The witnesses (I'm not Jehovah's Witness by the way) however, can only be 'God's words' because only they are infallible.

Therefore, in order to establish a Biblical truth you need to confirmÃ‚Â it with Biblical witnesses (two or three).

"Cursed be he that confirms not all the words of this law to do them. And all the people shall say, Amen. (Deut. 27:26)

We must not go anywhere else but 'to the scriptures' and the scriptures themselves will explain the meanings for us. To do anything else is called the 'commandments of men' and will cause confusion.Ã‚Â

I was following the Biblical method for interpreting, you were not!

Unfortunately, none of the above has anything to do with, nor is it representative of the misleading statements you have previously made. And now you attempt to side step what you have done,and accuse me of your misinterpretations via burden shifting (Which is basically an Ad hominem attack; and, of course, is itself is a prevarication). Also, this dishonest tactic is complaining about board moderating as well.

Rich DeemÃ‚Â states that when Gen 1:24-25 talk about he beast of the earth (chayah) it is referring to a carnivore.Ã‚Â A carnivore is a beast that survives off of the death of others.

Bruce

Hmmmm... that seems to contradict what God says here: Ã¢â‚¬Å“Ã¢â‚¬ËœThe wolf and the lamb themselves will feed as one, and the lion will eat straw just like the bull; and as for the serpent, his food will be dust. They will do no harm nor cause any ruin in all my holy mountain,Ã¢â‚¬â„¢ Jehovah has said.Ã¢â‚¬Â (Isaiah 65:25) So we can ask, how does God feel about carnivores? Are their actions "very good"?

Hmmmm... that seems to contradict what God says here: Ã¢â‚¬Å“Ã¢â‚¬ËœThe wolf and the lamb themselves will feed as one, and the lion will eat straw just like the bull; and as for the serpent, his food will be dust. They will do no harm nor cause any ruin in all my holy mountain,Ã¢â‚¬â„¢ Jehovah has said.Ã¢â‚¬Â (Isaiah 65:25) So we can ask, how does God feel about carnivores? Are their actions "very good"?

Proverbs 3:5 is a verse that anyone who tries to rationalize The Bible on this level needs to have a look at. I believe it is very dangerous to start with the fallacy of humans and then twisting what The Bible says to fit our view of the world. The Bible is the inerrant Word of God and is our ultimate source of authority.

Trusting in the Lord and not leaning upon one's own understanding is a good idea. But since the Lord has not provided us with a textbook about geology, but instead a text for spiritual guidance I will have to rely upon my training when doing geologic work. But is your interpretation of the Bible correct and from God or simply a concept coming from men?, Who is following a fallacy of humans and twisting scripture? Those with an opposing viewpoint who hold to an ancient earth could say the same of such people, and that they are twisting the Bible to fit their worldview. But in my experience such claims are far more likely to come from a YEC. Invoking what God intends reminds me of enemies in some wars who claim God is on their side. Christians on both sides in WW II claimed this. Could they both be correct?

I posted the link because Ken Ham can't think of any Hebrew Scholars that disagree that "Yom" in the creation account means 24 hour day. Dr. Kaiser didn't mention any Hebrew Scholar that agreed with him either.

But still yiou have not cited Hebrew scholars that agree with your position.

Radiometric dating makes too many assumptions to be accurate. Scientists also keep using the dating method until they get a answer that they deem satisfactory. If they don't like the age what the dating method comes up with, they keep doing it until they get an answer that is "right." If it is accurate, why would they need to use radiometric dating more than once on the same object?

This sounds as if you are only reading creationist claims about the subject. This is not an accurate explanation of how radiometric dating is conducted in general. It appears to me that professional creationists (those who make a living out of reading and criticizing mainstream science that goes against their concepts) find a handful of instances where additional work was done because sampling was thought to be contaminated, or the like and latch upon this as if it was they were rolling the dice to attempt to get a different result. Not only is that twisting the situation at hand to draw an unwarranted conclusion, the hundreds of other studies that did not do analysis more than once are all ignored.

Astrophysics can be quite confusing even to those who study it. Since you are aware of the Horizon problem then I don't really need to explain it. I agree that the distant starlight problem does not exist. So I guess we have nothing to discuss here.

Yes, it is a complicated subject in field that I have studied very little. I have a working knowledge of physics from the two university courses I took and I took a semester course in astronomy. What is your background in the subject? You sound as if you might have majored in astrophysics

I will go ahead and show some examples of The Bible being constant with science.

That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which [is] upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; Genesis 22:17

The Bible acknowledges that each star is unique, despite how they appear in the sky.

As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured: so will I multiply the seed of David my servant, and the Levites that minister unto me. Jeremiah 33:22

There are countless numbers of stars in space. The Bible acknowledges this.

"Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, [and] the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts [is] his name:" Jeremiah 31:35

The Bible acknowledges precise movements in the universe, including how tides work.

These sound like verses that only show that the Bible does not contradict science, not that it has Ã¢â‚¬Å“corrected scientists.Ã¢â‚¬Â

Nope. I'm not referring to the Paluxy tracks

Apparently they found human and dinosaur prints together in Turkmenian plateau. Modern Geologists never thought to correct their models based on findings such as these.

If this really had been the case I think it would have been reported in more than just a Russian newspaper with a follow up in a scholarly scientific publication. As it stands apparently not even a single photograph has emerged, or much in the way of specific details such as location and the classification of the fossils. As it stands I think the Paluxy tracks are far more credible, and I don't think they are what they have been claimed. The AIG artricle basically disowns this as been suspect and unverifiable, and yet you think geologists should correct their models based upon this?

I once bought a newspaper at the checkout line in a grocery store. In bold letters it said that Noah's Ark had been found, and the most surprising thing was that Adam was found within it. The report said that the research team that found the ark we puzzled as to how Adam's skeleton could be onboard, but it definitely was Adam as a rib was missing. This story has more credibility to me for at least I had the actual newspaper and not a reported claim of what was in a newspaper. The same newspaper, I think is was called The Globe had also carried a story, Ã¢â‚¬Å“Half of US Congress are AliensÃ¢â‚¬Â and it had a quote from Ted Kennedy, Ã¢â‚¬Å“That's right, I am an alien from outer space.Ã¢â‚¬Â

Here is something else that gave modern geology a scare. This is an example of how they try to use radiometric dating for their own advantage.

Well, first of all differences of opinion are relatively common amongst scientific researchers, but creationist sites like AIG seem to want to play this from both ends. Here they criticize scientists for conflicting viewpoints but state it inaccurately.

Fortunately for evolutionists, virtually any troublesome date can be Ã¢â‚¬Å“correctedÃ¢â‚¬Â by simply redating the errant specimen by the same or other dating methods until the desired age is achieved.

This implies that the two rival teams are working together to Ã¢â‚¬Å“correctÃ¢â‚¬Â the situation, when in fact they do not agree. Squabbles are being used to say that scientists can't make up their minds and will throw out data to come to a Ã¢â‚¬Å“correctÃ¢â‚¬Â solution when just the opposite has happened, two teams are holding their analysis to be more correct.

Dr. Gonzales and her colleagues at UKÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s University of Nottingham and the NERC Isotope Geosciences Laboratory have apparently accepted the challenge and are engaged in further redating of their own (it would appear that two can play this dating game). They have even set up yet another website to report their progress

This is probably made necessary by the fact that it is difficult for even evolutionists (to say nothing of creationists) to get their research published in peer-reviewed journals when it runs counter to prevailing evolutionary dogma.

It would appear that this claim is also untrue, and the Dr. Gonzales and her collaborators used multiple dating methods at the onset not a Ã¢â‚¬Å“re-datingÃ¢â‚¬Â exercise at all. The rival clam was published in a peer-reviewed journal

Ã¢â‚¬Å“If the markings are hominid foot prints, they would be most likely to be made by a hominid that existed before Homo sapiens and we consider such a possibility to be extremely remote. We conclude that the identification of any of these features as syndepositional hominid footprints is erroneous.Ã¢â‚¬Â

In other words, although the Ã¢â‚¬Å“markingsÃ¢â‚¬Â certainly look like human footprints, they can't be human footprints because they are inconsistent with prevailing evolutionary dogma.

That isn't what the quote says. It actually left the possibility that they were hominid prints, but not made at the same time as the deposition of the basaltic tuff in which the prints are purported to be found. Apparently the actual conclusion was stated in the abstract as:

Ã¢â‚¬Å“We conclude that either hominid migration into the Americas occurred very much earlier than previously believed, or that the features in question were not made by humans on recently erupted ash.Ã¢â‚¬Â

This article is out of date as recent analysis of Australopithecus fossils is in conflict with the cites claim from almost 30 years ago.

Most evolutionists believe that the extinct ape Australopithecus afarensis (commonly known as Ã¢â‚¬Å“LucyÃ¢â‚¬Â) made these footprints even though there is compelling evidence that apes of this type were long-armed knuckle walkers with heavily muscled apelike feet similar to that of a pygmy chimp (J. Stern & R. Sussman, Am. J. Phys. Anthropology 60:279Ã¢â‚¬â€œ212, 1983).

Ã¢â‚¬Å“The discovery that Australopithecus had arched feet suggests our human ancestors had already abandoned life in the treesThe ancestors of humans were walking upright more than 3m years ago, according to an analysis of a fossilised foot bone found in Ethiopia. The fossil, the fourth metatarsal bone from the species Australopithecus afarensis, shows that this forerunner of early humans had a permanently arched foot like modern humans, a key requirement for an upright gait.Arches in human feet put a spring in our step: they are stiff enough to propel us forward but flexible enough to absorb the shocks at the end of strides.Scientists already knew that A. afarensis could walk on two feet but were unsure whether the creatures climbed and grasped tree branches as well, much like their own ancestor species and modern nonhuman apes. The fourth metatarsal, described on Thursday in Science, shows that A. afarensis moved around more like modern humans.Ã¢â‚¬Â

You are not obligated to read all of these articles, geology is not a field that I really pay much attention to because I'm already aware of the great bias that had a hand in creating the model.

So because of your strong bias you don't pay much attention to actually learning how the study of geology is really conducted, but only post a link making many false claims about the actual field of geology?

A wrong definition is used here:

Ã¢â‚¬Å“Uniformitarianism

The doctrine that present-day processes acting at similar rates as observed today account for the change evident in the geologic record.Ã¢â‚¬Â

The similar rates part is not correct in any definition a modern geologist would use. You will only find such a definition being set forward by creationists, as what is believed by those they disagree with...so it is a straw man.

Ã¢â‚¬Å“Despite the confidence in index fossils, there is much criticism of their useÃ¢â‚¬â€from both creationists and evolutionists. Slight differences in shell shape or structure are used to assign the shell to a new species, despite the variation apparent within a single living species today..Another problem with index fossils is that, rather than being proof of evolution, evolution is already assumed to have occurred. The changes in features in index fossils of different periods are assumed to be caused by evolution, and the presence of different organisms in different periods is then used to support biological evolution. This is a case of using an assumption to prove the assumption is trueÃ¢â‚¬â€circular reasoning by any measure.Ã¢â‚¬Å“

Oh dear, the inevitable straw man argument I have found to be so common in creationist explanations of geology and associated science. If variations are found in shell shape and a new species is assigned, it is a new index fossil. This is not done because a feature is different from the majority but within a range in variation, but with consistently different features.

Evolution is not used to determine the use of index fossils. William Smith most certainly did not use this, a concept he did not think about when he basically used fossils in this way for the first time. His practice has continued. Whether or not anyone uses the presence of fossils in succeeding strata to support evolution is irrelevant, and thrown in here as a red herring to help set up the straw man. As evolution is not an assumption upon which the fossils are selected. this claim of circular reasoning is a blatant straw man.

The mistaken claims in this piece are really too numerous to be worth much time mentioning. Most have come up in other threads are been well refuted.

Thank you so much for that post. It was very persuasive, especially the verse were Jesus quoted Genesis 1. There is no greater authority on Scripture than Jesus.

I will spend time in scripture praying and reading Scripture about the subject. (Acts 17:11). I will also spend more time studying about the fossil record.

God Bless,

Bruce

Thank you Bruce for being so open to this. Coincidentally (or not ) there is an article in the latest Answers Magazine from AiG on the fact that C-14 is virtually always present in fossils (in addition to coal, gas, diamonds, etc). The evolutionists do not have a solid explanation for this. It would be hard to blame on contamination since even after the most painstaking care in preventing any contamination, C-14 is still found. There should be no C-14 after 50K years.

The Answers article is not yet available online, but here is a related article by Dr John Baumgardner, a widely-respected scientist at Los Alamos labs (he was featured in Time Magazine for his work with plate tectonics):

But still yiou have not cited Hebrew scholars that agree with your position.

The easiest to cite is James Barr, as I have previously quoted in this thread. He was singled out by a creationist for a statement on Genesis because he was highly-regarded amongst his peers. He was a non-practicing Jew who had no stake in the YEC vs OEC debate, and himself does not believe in the history as portrayed in Genesis; hence he is the ideal source when he says yom means literal day.

Also, I've corresponded in the past with a Hebrew scholar, his name unfortunately escapes me (2LOT on my brain), but you can watch him in action if you so desire to get this debate:

This was a debate between YEC vs Hugh Ross's Reasons to Believe chapter in Colorado that I attended. They Reasons to Believe group was represented by a couple of scientists from CU. The fact they don't offer the debate on their website is a good indication as to who won the debate! Anyway, this scholar I mentioned was one of the representatives for the YEC side. The Hug Ross group began by trying to explain how Genesis 1 can be interpreted as long eras of time. He claimed to have a Hebrew scholar who validated this position for him, yet he couldn't provide his name. The Hebrew scholar on the YEC side was next was next, and he began by reading all of Genesis 1, IN HEBREW. The Hugh Ross side had no idea what he was doing until he told them after he finished. He then explained how it is absolutely impossible by any standard of scholarship to take day to mean anything other than a literal day int he context Given in Genesis 1. The next person for the YEC side, Bob Enyart, then quipped when it was his turn, "I'll take your one scholar and raise him by 1000".

If anyone doubts this, just go to a few universities and poll their Hebrew scholars!

1) Since you believe in millions of years of death, disease, and suffering before Adam, how do you explain all those verses that say that death came into the world as a result of Adam's sin? Jesus called death an enemy, why would we he allow millions of years of it? I don't believe in death, disease and suffering before Adam, and I do believe in a literal world-wide flood. I guess "Old Earth Creationist" seems to have a different meaning than I originally thought.

It does indeed. OECs are by-and-large either "progressive creationists" of the Hugh Ross variety, or theistic evolutionists. OECs who believe in a global flood typically fall in the gap theory column, but this is a nearly dead belief because of its own set of problems.

2) How do you explain the end of Genesis chapter 1 where God said everything he had created was "very good"?

It can still be very good. It was simply in existence for a while.

Can you even imagine millions of years of death, cancer, suffering? All this is seen in the fossil record. How is this "good"?

I prefer to listen to the leadings of the Holy Spirit.

You won't like this, but this partly explains why you are in a cult religion. The Mormons also preach to "pray about the Book of Mormon and listen for an answer", because they know enough people will get hairs on the back of their neck that will become a sign to them that the Book of Mormon is true, and they get a new contributor to their cult. While God has spoken audibly to people in the Bible, He has made it clear in the Bible, that the Bible is His mode of communication for us, the source of His truth. Paul called the Bereans noble for searching the scriptures to prove the things he said were true. He didn't ask them to pray to see if it were so, or see if hairs on the back of their neck stand up.

Since the topic of the thread was 'a literal 6 days' (and one I presumed you agreed with) I was simply stating that it could not have been a literal6 days but really means 'generations' (and who knows how long the word generations is referring to).

So then you don't believe in a literal 6 day interpretation?

I believe that it took a literal 6 days for God to create a earth "aged" to 4.6 billion years.

"Respected Hebrew dictionaries, like the Brown, Driver, Briggs lexicon, give a number of meanings for the word yom depending upon context. One of the passages they give for yom's meaning an ordinary day happens to be Genesis chapter 1. The reason is obvious. Every time the word yom is used with a number, or with the phrase 'evening and morning', anywhere in the Old Testament, it always means an ordinary day. In Genesis chapter 1, for each of the six days of creation, the Hebrew word yom is used with a number and the phrase, 'evening and morning'. There is no doubt that the writer is being emphatic that these are ordinary days."

"Respected Hebrew dictionaries, like the Brown, Driver, Briggs lexicon, give a number of meanings for the word yom depending upon context. One of the passages they give for yom's meaning an ordinary day happens to be Genesis chapter 1. The reason is obvious. Every time the word yom is used with a number, or with the phrase 'evening and morning', anywhere in the Old Testament, it always means an ordinary day. In Genesis chapter 1, for each of the six days of creation, the Hebrew word yom is used with a number and the phrase, 'evening and morning'. There is no doubt that the writer is being emphatic that these are ordinary days."

It does indeed. OECs are by-and-large either "progressive creationists" of the Hugh Ross variety, or theistic evolutionists. OECs who believe in a global flood typically fall in the gap theory column, but this is a nearly dead belief because of its own set of problems. I do believe that there could have been a time gap, but I do not belief in speculative gap theories. It is as Ron said in another post. Even if the stars and the planet were created before Genesis day 1... life was not.
[i]
Can you even imagine millions of years of death, cancer, suffering? All this is seen in the fossil record. How is this "good"? My problem with YEC has nothing to do with the fossil record, or starlight, or any other scientific evidence. In fact, I don't really have any major problems with any of YEC's beliefs or explanations. I just feel that the Bible is not 100% clear on this, and if the Bible is not 100% clear then I don't want to be adamant about the point. I don't believe that the fossil record of cancer and suffering is a recording of time before Adam.
You won't like this, but this partly explains why you are in a cult religion. The Mormons also preach to "pray about the Book of Mormon and listen for an answer", because they know enough people will get hairs on the back of their neck that will become a sign to them that the Book of Mormon is true, and they get a new contributor to their cult. While God has spoken audibly to people in the Bible, He has made it clear in the Bible, that the Bible is His mode of communication for us, the source of His truth. Paul called the Bereans noble for searching the scriptures to prove the things he said were true. He didn't ask them to pray to see if it were so, or see if hairs on the back of their neck stand up. Oh, I am sorry, you misunderstand what I meant. I mean that the Bible is the only authority inspired by Holy Spirit. One need not listen to Hebrew Scholars. We can discern the meaning of the Bible by comparing it to the other scriptures on the same topic or using the same words. Just as a side note, I have looked into the Mormon teachings and many, many things are *drastically* different than JW teachings, including who God is and the resurrection hope. We do not have our own set of scriptures and we do not claim anyone since John being inspired by God.

"Respected Hebrew dictionaries, like the Brown, Driver, Briggs lexicon, give a number of meanings for the word yom depending upon context. One of the passages they give for yom's meaning an ordinary day happens to be Genesis chapter 1. The reason is obvious. Every time the word yom is used with a number, or with the phrase 'evening and morning', anywhere in the Old Testament, it always means an ordinary day. In Genesis chapter 1, for each of the six days of creation, the Hebrew word yom is used with a number and the phrase, 'evening and morning'. There is no doubt that the writer is being emphatic that these are ordinary days."

I'm very serious, and have been all along. And you had not provided the thoughts of a single Hebrew scholar until now. In looking at this thread again I see that Fred provided the case of James Barr. You failed to come up with anybody on your own despite your claim that all Hebrew scholars favored the interpretation that you were giving.

But since you stopped and just gave some cut and paste, am I to conclude that the rest of my lengthy post is to not be taken seriously and ignored?

It is very hard to find a Hebrew scholar who doesn't recognize Genesis 1 as a literal account. James Barr was a perfect witness for YEC because he had no stake in the YEC vs OEC debate, he was a non-practicing Jew and highly regarded scholar of his time. He wrote:

"Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . . Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know."

You are correct that 'yom' can mean a long period of time, just as day can in the English language (eg. back in my father's day). Just like in our language, the context tells us the meaning. Every time throughout the Bible when day "yom" is used with day and night, morning/evening, or an ordinal, OEC agree it always means a literal day, except of course in Genesis 1. The author made the context very clear by using ALL of these qualifiers to make it very clear the days were literal 24-hours.

Fred

Thanks for bringing up what an actual Hebrew scholar thought about the subject. When I asked for this information from other posters they had failed to provide what you have posted here.

I'm very serious, and have been all along. And you had not provided the thoughts of a single Hebrew scholar until now. In looking at this thread again I see that Fred provided the case of James Barr. You failed to come up with anybody on your own despite your claim that all Hebrew scholars favored the interpretation that you were giving.

But since you stopped and just gave some cut and paste, am I to conclude that the rest of my lengthy post is to not be taken seriously and ignored?

I'm not going to spell everything out for you when I think you show pretty good knowledge on the subject matter.(It's a subject that you seem to have done a lot of research on.) I was very certain that you knew that Hebrew Scholars interpret six literal days. And again, I could of mentioned James Barr earlier, but I was very certain that you were aware of the Hebrew consensus. I also provided something that Fred didn't, references to Hebrew dictionaries that use "Yom" in Genesis 1:1-11 as an example for 24 hour days. I gave you a copy and paste because I'm not going to pretend to be a guy who can pull everything out without checking my references first. If I get my information from a reference, I cite it. There is no shame in me appealing to an authority.

I appreciate the potshot that you made at me in one of your other follow up posts, very good sportsmanship. I'll look over your post and make an appropriate response when I am in the mood for a lengthy debate.

And please do not derail the thread by criticizing the way I debate. I'll come back later to make an appropriate response to the rest of your post.